1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 MOU UN WONG, Case No. 21-cv-03814-VKD

9 Plaintiff, ORDER FOR REASSIGNMENT TO A DISTRICT JUDGE; 10 v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 11 CHRISTINA K. DAWSON, et al., RE REMAND 12 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 1

13 14 Defendants Christina Kamalam,1 Alex Singarayan and Daniel Andrew2 removed this 15 unlawful detainer action from the Santa Clara County Superior Court. For the reasons stated 16 below, the undersigned orders that this matter be reassigned to a District Judge, with the 17 recommendation that the case be remanded to the state court for lack of federal subject matter 18 jurisdiction.3 19 Removal to federal court is proper where the federal court would have original subject 20 matter jurisdiction over the complaint.

. The removal statutes are strictly 21 construed against removal and place the burden on the defendant to demonstrate that removal is 22 proper. Moore-Thomas v. Alaska Airlines, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 2009) (citing Gaus 23 v. Miles, Inc.,

(9th Cir. 1992)). Additionally, the Court has a continuing duty to 24

25 1 This defendant appears to be identified as “Christina Dawson” in the complaint.

26 2 The complaint names an additional defendant, Amol Sinha, who apparently has not joined in the removal of this matter. 27 1 determine whether it has subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). A case must be 2 remanded to the state court if it appears at any time before final judgment that the court lacks 3 subject matter jurisdiction.

(c). 4 Defendants fail to show that removal is proper based on any federal law. Federal courts 5 have original jurisdiction over civil actions “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the 6 United States.”

. A claim “arises under” federal law if, based on the “well- 7 pleaded complaint rule,” the plaintiff alleges a federal claim for relief. Vaden v. Discovery Bank, 8

(2009). Defenses and counterclaims asserting a federal question do not satisfy 9 this requirement.

. Here, plaintiff’s complaint presents a claim arising only under state 10 law. It does not allege any federal claims whatsoever. Although defendants assert that plaintiff 11 has violated various federal laws, allegations in a removal notice or in a response to the complaint 12 cannot provide this Court with federal question jurisdiction. 13 This Court also finds no basis for diversity jurisdiction. Federal district courts have 14 jurisdiction over civil actions in which the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of 15 $75,000 (exclusive of interest and costs) and is between citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. 16 § 1332. The papers presented indicate that defendants reside in California. As California 17 defendants, they cannot remove this case on the basis of diversity. See

(b)(2) 18 (stating that an action may not be removed on the basis of diversity “if any of the parties in interest 19 properly joined and served as defendants is a citizen of the State in which such action is 20 brought.”); see also Spencer v. U.S. Dist. Ct.,

, 870 (9th Cir. 2004) (“It is thus clear 21 that the presence of a local defendant at the time removal is sought bars removal.”). In any event, 22 the complaint indicates that the amount demanded does not exceed $10,000. Dkt. No. 1-1. 23 Unlawful detainer actions involve the right to possession alone, not title to the property. The fact 24 that the subject property may be worth more than $75,000 is irrelevant. MOAB Investment Group, 25 LLC v. Moreno, No. C14-0092 EMC,

at *1 (N.D. Cal., Feb. 6, 2014); Maxwell 26 Real Estate Investment LLC v. Bracho, No. C12-02774 RMW,

at *1 (N.D. 27 Cal., July 13, 2012). 1 that future attempts to remove this matter may result in sanctions. 2 Because the parties have yet to consent to magistrate judge jurisdiction, this Court 3 ORDERS the Clerk of the Court to reassign this case to a District Judge. The undersigned further 4 || RECOMMENDS that the newly assigned judge remand the case to the Santa Clara County 5 Superior Court. Any party may serve and file objections to this Report and Recommendation 6 || within fourteen days after being served. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 || Dated: May 24, 2021 9

10 UniginiaE, □□□□□ VIRGINIA K. DEMARCH I United States Magistrate Judge 12

13

15

16

17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28